The Obama administration has announced that it intends to sue Arizona over its new law that will allow the state to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The stated goal of the lawsuit is to block implementation of the popular Arizona law before it takes effect on July 29. The unstated - but perhaps more important - objective of the administration is to intimidate other states where similar legislation is being considered.

The Obama administration's position on immigration policy is clear. The administration's goal is a sweeping amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and the virtual dismantling of all meaningful immigration-related enforcement. Not only is immigration enforcement not a priority for the current administration, but it is a threat to their overall political strategy that must be attacked aggressively.

A lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice is no idle threat. This administration is working in concert with amnesty advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union to try to make Arizona's defense as burdensome and costly as possible. Even if Arizona ultimately prevails - as many legal scholars believe the state will - victory is unlikely to come swiftly or cheaply.

For Arizona, which is saddled with an estimated $2.6 billion a year fiscal burden as a result of the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws, the cost of mounting a legal defense may be worth it. The problem of illegal immigration has become so acute in Arizona that residents seem ready to stand behind state leaders even as the costs of a legal defense mount.

In filing suit against Arizona, the administration is delivering an only slightly veiled and deeply troubling message to other states: Enforcing immigration laws locally may be right for your state; it may be popular with the voters; you even may prevail in the end. But we would rather fight you - American citizens - than fight illegal immigration. Upping the ante appears to be the latest strategy not only of the Obama administration, but also of others who want to prevent enforcement of immigration laws. In the case of the illegal-alien advocacy network, the threat is explicit, not implicit. "Local legislation is going to end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars," warned Ali Noorani, who runs the National Immigration Forum, an amnesty advocacy group.

Those threats are playing out in Fremont, Neb., where local voters approved an immigration-enforcement ordinance by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin on June 21 over the objections of the mayor and many on the City Council. Many local officials were not against the ballot measure per se but were concerned about the cost of defending the will of the people against the deep pockets of foundation-supported groups that oppose immigration enforcement.

"I do caution everyone that voted for this that there will be a cost to pay," said one opponent on the Fremont City Council after the vote. "It's going to be very costly for the city while this is litigated," warned another council member. Their concerns are not unfounded. No sooner had the votes been counted than the ACLU announced its intent to sue the city. "Our intention is to make sure the law does not go into effect for even one day," said a spokeswoman for the Nebraska ACLU.

Whether in Arizona or Fremont, whether instigated by the Obama administration or advocacy groups, lawsuits over local immigration-enforcement policies appear to have less to do with the pursuit of justice than with raw intimidation for partisan gain. In the process, justice and protection for ordinary citizens harmed by unenforced immigration laws become collateral damage as political interests are pursued through the courts.

In the end, many local governments will have little choice but to endure the expense of a court battle as the costs of providing basic services to illegal aliens escalate. The decision of the Obama administration to bleed the taxpayers of Arizona signals that before Americans can protect themselves against the harmful effects of mass illegal immigration, they will have to fight a very costly battle with their own government.

..................................................................

OBAMA AIMS PRO-ILLEGAL LAWSUIT AT ARIZONA

Federal leviathan will use tax dollars to intimidate states

By Dan Stein

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

*****************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAIS AUSURPER

He is not eligible to bePresident of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligiblebecause he was not born ofTWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSAT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTHas required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth. Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizenof Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United Statescitizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htmAlso, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can becorrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid._

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

Post a Comment

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com